Published on 12, July, 2020
Well that was a thumping majority, but I think a wide but shallow one. Reform did less well that exit polls predicted, for which I'm glad, but they have quite a high vote share. THe LibDems had a brilliant night.
A nice collection of Tory scalps for new MP's, Rees Mogg and Truss amoung them.
I stayed up until 3am and then had to go to bed, so I didn't see the big scalps taken, I'm tired today though.
It dosen't feel all unicorns and rainbow, frollicking fauns, and splashing mermaids, but I'm glad we've got some change, but it's a poisoned chalice for Starmer and gang, this country has so many problems in need of fixing. But I hope we have a stable government and not all this continual chopping and changing of PM and other ministers, I think part of the problems have been caused by so many reshuffles, ministers don't have time to get on top of their brief before they're moved on. That means any policy objectives they had are discarded by the successor, so nothing gets done and the rot sets deeper.
Here are some of Labour's achievements during their last period in government, lending a lie to the idea that nothing ever changes or is achieved:
https://www.shrewsburylabour.org.uk/labours-top-50-achievements/
Between 1997 and 2010 Labour was continuously in government. Here are Labour’s top 50 achievements during those years.
That’s a pretty good list!
Yep....I agree....although it did cost LITERALLY ALL the gold that Britain ever held. We have none now. We DESPERATELY need some now. There is, LITERALLY no money in Britain now. We're in trouble.....but NOBODY speaks of it.
Partisan politics is dumb.
And that's why kiddies, ANYONE who has "savings" should have at least some of it in gold.
Certain U.K. Gold coins do not attract CGT, so when the pound value of your Kilo of Sovereigns increases as it always does like "bank savings with interest" are supposed to, You don't pay Capital Gains Tax on them..
You do lose money in fees if you don't wait inbetween buying and selling of course, but weighing in your gold is a lot less tempting than just spending a bit off an account, so I found it works better for me to have and hold "savings for a rainy day". And unlike a bank account, gold does not generate "junk mail".
Number said:although it did cost LITERALLY ALL the gold that Britain ever held.
Nope.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48177767
401 tonnes of gold - out of its 715-tonne holding
Number said:so it did not seem unreasonable to mention just one single 'thing' that impacted debt in that same period?.......namely; Between 1999 and 2002, 395 tons of UK gold (which I have always thought of as the piggy-bank of the UK) were sold by the UK.for $275 per ounce. Gold is now worth $2,380 per ounce.
so it did not seem unreasonable to mention just one single 'thing' that impacted debt in that same period?.......namely;
Between 1999 and 2002, 395 tons of UK gold (which I have always thought of as the piggy-bank of the UK) were sold by the UK.for $275 per ounce. Gold is now worth $2,380 per ounce.
I think that what you say here is incorrect.
GB didn't sell to pay for those items in my list but for various other reasons.
So, the gold sale wasn't the cost of what I listed (as you say above) irrespective of the fact that some of those changes didn't have a cost attached but were just ethical/principle based.
A very bad decision on his part, no doubt, with hindsight, but you will see from the BBC article:
Despite these headline numbers, at the time it seemed perfectly sensible to many at the Treasury.
As a not inconsequential aside, the monies raised would have earned considerable compound interest in the interim.
See also this article from 2011 in the FT:
https://www.ft.com/content/5788dbac-7680-11e0-b05b-00144feabdc0